ML20053A377

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort/Environ Law Project Response to Applicant 820518 Motion for Extension of Time. Petitioner Does Not Object to Request But Then NRC Appears Not to Be Neutral.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20053A377
Person / Time
Site: Harris  
Issue date: 05/20/1982
From: Read D
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8205260036
Download: ML20053A377 (2)


Text

"

m

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICESSIUG BOARD

,L

.l In the !*atter of Carolina Power g

and Light Company, et al '

)

Docket 50 400, 401 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power

)

Plants, Units 1 and 2 May 20, 1982 RESPONSE OF CHAPEL HILL ANTICNUCLEAR GRCUP EFFORT / ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Pr.uJ.

ECT (CHANGE /ELP) TO AFFLICANTS8 MOT.

ION FOR EXTENSION OF TILE On May 14, 1982 and May 15, 1982, pursuant to an order of the Board dated April 2, 1982 and subsequent arrangements' under that order, Petitioner CHANGE /ELP filed its supplement to its petition for leave to intervene. On May 18, 1982 Apclicants filed a motion for extension of time, which in-dicated inter alia tha$ other petitions and supplements had been received in a timely manner, p. 1. Applicants propose that they be allowed to file their contentions simultanecusly.

with the NRC Staff on June 4 or '/, p. 2-3 Petitioner has no objection to the substant'ive interest advanced by the request, i.e.,

to provide Applicants with more l

time in which to prepare their response to the contentions, j

having itself previously filed for an extension of time. How-l ever, Petitioner would call to the Eoard's attention the l

l somewhat incongruous result' granting the petitio'n as stated would cause. Rather than responding to the intervenors' con-l tentions and then allo::ing the NRC Stsff time to respond to l

both the contentions and the responses thereto, Applicants l

would have the Staff file its responses simultaneously. The Staff has expressed no objection, according to Applicants, p.

2. However, Petitioner CHANGE /ELP would note that by no doing the Staff appears not in the role of a neutral regulatqry body enraged in assisting the Eoard to define the issues and consider all aspects of the contentions in the best interests 8205260036k

\\